Lamsa probably was a Trinitarian, even though he disliked the word "Trinity." To dislike a word does not mean that one disagrees with the concept behind the word. St. Augustine disliked the word "persons" when speaking of the Trinity. He thought it was too easy to misunderstand the word and think of it as meaning separate individuals, therefore destroying the divine unity of the Godhead.

Probably? Probably? Riiiiiiiight. C'mon Matthew, you're just trying interpret Lamsa how you want to because you like him. "Probably" doesn't cut it.

Probably?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Probably?ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Riiiiiiiight.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š C'mon Matthew, you're just trying interpret Lamsa how you want to because you like him.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š "Probably" doesn't cut it.

I read his books. Had he been a Unitarian, Lamsa would have denied the deity of Christ. Had he been a modalist, he would have denied that the Father and the Son are distinct from each other. This leads one to conclude that, although he disliked Trinitarian language, he believed in Trinitarian doctrine.You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

That is pretty ignorant to say of St. Augustine - first, as 'person' is an English word, and secondly as St. Augustine uses the Latin term properly translated as 'person' without fault throughout his "On the Trinity". In the same work he praises St. Hilary ( for his work also titled "On the Trinity") regarding the attributes of each person of the Godhead (noting thereby that where St. Hilary and St. Augustine are in agreement is the Orthodox position - the Blessed Trinity, One God in Three Persons, each having attributes (not *being* three attributes.)

But, you're still not admitting the truth about George Lamsa - he left his Eastern Church and adopted Western language, culture, identity, *and religion*. Calvary Missionary Church. Calvary Missionary Church. Calvary Missionary Church. (In case you missed it) - not "Mar ........ Assyrian Church of the East" - but Calvary Missionary Church. Consider also that that the last of his life was as a teacher in the Unity School of Christianity in Lee's Summit Missouri (Unitarian Protestant "Theosophical" leaning organization in the oh-so Semitic land of Missouri.) The history of George Lamsa's schooling is also that of Western Protestant formation - at least, claiming to have studied at Anglican and Episcopalian schools (and a Jewish school) both abroad and in the USA. Those who have attempted to verify his biography, however, have not been successful in uncovering any evidence of most of his claimed schooling.

His text isn't any more Eastern than the Septuagint (which Christ did have, being Palestinian Jewish and not Babylonian Jewish), he might have been raised as a child in an Eastern church but by choice and product was fully Western (just unorthodox Western.) And his "Eastern mind"? Not evident at all.

Refusing the language is refusing the dogma (and, I note your attempt to lower unchangeable dogma to the level of mutable doctrine - doctrine is simply teaching - which only need be sound. The tripartite persons of the Holy Trinity, however, is a matter of *dogma*. Refusal of language is refusal of the dogma - same with those who refuse Theotokos for other terms.) There is nothing Orthodox or particularly Eastern about Lamsa or his work.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

There are bibles out there translated in english certified by the Orthodox Patrirachates. Go to an Orthodox church and get one... You cant get more authentic copy of the bible than those..

This leads one to conclude that, although he disliked Trinitarian language, he believed in Trinitarian doctrine.You are correct that I like George Lamsa. In a society where most Bible versions are created by Western Protestant translators using questionable manuscripts, it is refreshing to read a Bible translated by an Eastern mind, who belonged to an Eastern church, from an Eastern text.

No, it leads YOU to conclude what you do. Stop saying Lamsa has an "Eastern Mind" when he really left his faith.

coauthors and publishes "The Life of George M. Lamsa Translator" autobiography - no date known for publication.

passed away in 1975, California.

....

I don't have the date for when he began to involve himself with the Association for Research and Enlightenment (Edgar Cayce Institute), or for the involvement with The Way International.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

From what I have seen, Lamsa's version is the best complete English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta available. If there is a better one, please show me so that I may search for it. In the mean time, I consider the Lamsa Bible to be the most accurate Bible I have ever read, and it has rekindled my interest in reading Scripture. Ultimately, the best translation is the one you will actually read, because taking in the Word of God is what really matters. Heady theological and historical arguments aside, that is what really matters.

Though he may have left the Assyrian Church from which he was raised, he still was in the unique position to undersand the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles, given his upbringing in such a similar cultural background.

Though he may have left the Assyrian Church from which he was raised, he still was in the unique position to undersand the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles, given his upbringing in such a similar cultural background.

M777, that is the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. No one during that time really understood "the language and culture of Christ and the Apostles". It was not cryogenically frozen for 1900 years. Even then, he was 15 when left! 15!

Did you know that Benny Hinn is Lebanese and grew up Orthodox? Why don't you buy whatever he sells then? Just because he apostacized doesn't mean that his works aren't authentic.

Matthew - if you are truly interested in Scripture in a Semitic context, you'll need to dump the Lamsa and learn Syriac. You can get a copy of the Scriptures here: http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/Books/bookstore.htm - a Holy Bible in Syriac is about $25 USD - get a Syriac grammar (not too difficult to find, use Amazon.)

The fact about translation into English of the Scriptures is that the English are not Asians. God in his Providence sets the times and places of man's habitation - and for the English, this has meant the Scriptures used in English would be based upon LXX and Latin Vulgate for the most part. The Orthodox Church uses a number of authoritative translations without finding much fault (full King James 1611, Douay-Rheims, Revised Standard Version - often in the Oxford Annotated printing, Nelson's LXX-corrected NKJV "Orthodox Study Bible", even the Buena Vista new translation.) If one is in English speaking culture, this is the Scripture as we've received it (and, Lamsa isn't a part of that - scholars don't use his Bible, but who does is instructive: Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, and a number of other cults.)

If you really desire to be part of Eastern culture, then you'll have to make the break with English now - quit using a translation and learn the Syriac (and, since you're in a Malankara parish, maybe even Malayalam.) I'm not sure about your chances for marrying in - Indian families have high standards - both in family background, education, and career success. But, using an English idiomatic translation isn't going to help you develop any sense of Semitic Christianity like a Semitic language does. (That, and Syriac isn't that hard - I can read much of it just from my Hebrew - though as Eastern Orthodox, I just happen to have access to both the Liturgical Tradition and Scriptures in Hebrew - both translated in the 19th c. from the authoritative LXX and Byzantine texts, and thus holding to the superior Old Hebrew readings, the texts preserved in the Levant,and the liturgical use of Palestine's monasteries.) The Lamsa agenda doesn't really help - neither for becoming Orthodox, nor for how it might reflect on the Malankara Archdiocese (I've yet to see that Archbishop H.E. Mor Titus Yeldho Pathickal supports Lamsa's teaching - might be important for the Patriarch and other Orthodox to know?)

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

To be fair to the Amish they aren't living in "first Century" conditions and they do use some modern medicine. There is actually some fascinating information about genetic diseases in small populations that has come from them letting doctors do research in helping them. I read about it recently in, I think, Scientific American.

If Matthew777 wants to help people who are need it there are the intinerant farmworkers who travel around harvesting. That can be pretty bad in terms of living. There are people in his own area, I'll wager

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

What is so wrong with death? Isn't it nothing more than the passage into another life?

Would you be able to say that to a woman whose child is dying for want of a vaccination or a few cents worth of medicine or nutrients? Or to one dying of "Child bed fever" that could be cured with antibiotics or prevented with some cleanliness so that she will leave a motherless newborn? We all will die, but God gave us the intelligence and ability to help others with illness or malnutrition or injury. Declaring that "modern technology" is to be avoided begs the question of "Which technology? Why?"

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Yes - that translation is more trustworthy (I can't vouch for it being 'perfect' - I'm not on that level.) Note it is sold by the Syriac Orthodox Church. Dr. George Kiraz does have a good reputation that I know of - interesting that http://gorgiaspress.com/ doesn't carry Lamsa, eh? More importantly, through the same press you can get the tools to learn Syriac, and study the Scriptures in Syriac.

Logged

"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

While rummaging through my deceased mother's-in-law cellar yesterday I found a copy of Lamsa's bible - seventh edition. A surprising coincidence to me.

Perusing it I was immediately struck that it exactly followed the canon as presented in the protestant KJV . That seemed most odd.This morning I spent some time comparing Lamsa's translation to a couple other Peshitta translations (partial) as I have been able to gather off the Internet over the years. Seems there are numerous differences between these... a lot of them.

I'll just stick with the Orthodox Church's recognized bible, thanks.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

[quote author=ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¹ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒâ€ Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¿ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂºÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â»ÃƒÆ’Ã…Â½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â®ÃƒÆ’Ã‚ÂÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ link=topic=9572.msg129810#msg129810 date=1154272758]Learn Greek, then form an opinion, if you must.[/quote]

I don't believe the Assyrian Church of the East even teaches the heretical "trinitarian" theology of Lamsa. They accept the council of Nicea. I think they even consider Sts Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Basil, as saints if I remember correctly?

The Best existing interlinear (not translation- these are frowned upon by the COE) is that of Deacon Paul Younan of Peshitta.org

Unfortunately it is incomplete. Some time is needed to complete the epistles. You must learn Syriac/Aramaic to be able to read the Peshitta in its original. As a strong believer in Aramaic primacy of the New Testament (a position which I hope won't get me stoned here in an Orthodox church forum) you can only read the original in its original language. The COE is trinitarian, but it does not accept the terminology of the Western Church in its creeds. It believes in Christ having two natures bound in one person, but not the "Nestorian" thing the Copts and others say they do.

In that thread, I brought up something I saw in a catechism of the COE:

"35) In what sense can we recognize or acknowledge certain theological terminology used by our beloved sister apostolic churches who will address The Ever Virgin Mary as “The Mother of God”??

The Orthodox position will declare this: The Blessed Mother did not give birth to His Godhead, which is from eternal; but rather she had given birth to His manhood, at the end of time, still it is right to be called “the Mother of God,” why? Because He who is born of her is at once God and Man. By way of example: The mother of the President of the United States did not give birth to his presidency, she gave birth to the man; and indeed we call her the mother of the President; and again, the Catholicos Patriarch of the East received his office from The Church, and not from his mother who bore him, and we do call her the mother of the Patriarch."

What struck me was the language which seemed to be comparing the relationship between Christ's divinity and humanity to the relationship between the President and his presidency, or the Patriarch and his office.

I'm pretty sure the OO's would never use language like the above. It seems to express too loose of a union between Christ's divinity and humanity. I don't think the EO's would be comfortable with it either (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.)

Could you shed some light on this? I guess I am trying to understand your church better.

I am not fluent in Syriac but I assure you that the COE is not Arian or the "Nestorian" parody people have claimed for centuries. We are talking about perhaps the most ancient semitic church (one of the most ancient for sure), which stresses a clear distinction between the divine nature of the Messiah and his human nature. "Your will be done, not mine" to paraphrase Jesus's famous words in the Garden of Gethsemane. The COE, being a very conservative body which does not want the scriptures to become the opinions and works of man, does not use language which is non-semitic based when describing its Christology. The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate. To refuse to acknowledge the difference is to worship a Man-God in the Greek pagan tradition. Man/God=scriptural, Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so. Of course some people like the Copts believe in this absurdity, but well, most folks are Orthodox and not Monophysite like them.

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so.

I think both OO's and EO's would agree with that.

Quote

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

That is definitely the case. I have Assyrian friends and relatives, although none of them belong to the COE.

I've mentioned in other threads how there is a lot of intermarriage between Armenians and Assyrians and how Armenians and Assyrians often do go to each other's churches. Both nations suffered greatly during the Genocide of 1915 and relations are very warm between us.

That's one reason I don't want you to think I am being polemical or unfriendly in asking questions about your Church. I really am just trying to understand better.

I am not fluent in Syriac but I assure you that the COE is not Arian or the "Nestorian" parody people have claimed for centuries. We are talking about perhaps the most ancient semitic church (one of the most ancient for sure), which stresses a clear distinction between the divine nature of the Messiah and his human nature. "Your will be done, not mine" to paraphrase Jesus's famous words in the Garden of Gethsemane. The COE, being a very conservative body which does not want the scriptures to become the opinions and works of man, does not use language which is non-semitic based when describing its Christology. The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate. To refuse to acknowledge the difference is to worship a Man-God in the Greek pagan tradition. Man/God=scriptural, Man-God where the divinity and humanity are fused and God became something neither human nor something divine is not so. Of course some people like the Copts believe in this absurdity, but well, most folks are Orthodox and not Monophysite like them.

Understand now? By the way Salpy, Armenians and Assyrians are most excellent friends and often frequent each others churches even though canons forbid this.

You have to be very careful with the bolded statement above. It can be dangerous to say that the humanity and divinity are separate. They are truely distinct BUT they are not separated because they are united in one person. They do not mix and form a hybrid nature, but but "the word became flesh". As for the Theotokos, is not Christ God? If he is then Mary must be the Theotokos.

« Last Edit: December 17, 2009, 10:40:23 AM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I'm pretty sure the OO's would never use language like the above. It seems to express too loose of a union between Christ's divinity and humanity. I don't think the EO's would be comfortable with it either (perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.)

No, you are not wrong: the EO wouldn't. As St. Cyril points out, the ideas expressed here would mean that God did not empty Himself out (kenosis) as St. Paul claims in Phillippians, but rather God raised a man to His level.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

I think the dialogue between the Assyrians and the OO's that went on need to be thrown out and start all over. The Coptic Church felt that they were defrauded not once, but many times in the dialogues. Perhaps one can get a sense of understanding in these dialogues when one finds out NOW that the leader of these dialogues Metropolitan Mar Bawai Soro, has now left the Assyrian Church and joined the Roman Catholic Church.

Perhaps Mar Bawai was being dishonest in his talks with the OO's. I don't know. But one thing for sure, one of the things our Metropolitan His Emminence (HE) Bishoy was quite annoyed by was when Mar Bawai wanted to give an analogy of understanding of Assyrian Christology with that of Cyrillian Christology:

Quote

I was an observer in the dialogue and discussed with Metropolitan Bawai Soro the concept of the persons in Christ distinct in thought alone. He said “as you (the Oriental Orthodox) accept that two natures were united in one incarnate nature of God the Logos and the two distinct in thought alone, we also consider two persons forming one person of the union and distinct in thought alone”. At this stage I told him since we do not dissolve the two natures after the union you cannot dissolve the persons in one after the union and the two persons will continue to exist in the union even if they are distinct in thought alone. Consequently we are going to have four persons in heaven instead of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

So is Christ one person or two?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions. The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died??? The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism). The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic which is the language of the Messiah, and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons. Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome. Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

We are pretty certain that almost all of the New Testament was written in Greek, not Aramaic.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

I just said the Assyrian church of the East does NOT believe in that Arian garbage. You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions.

I do read Aramaic, but I think you mean Syriac (which I also read). Since, however, Theodoret and of course Nestorius expressed himself in Greek also, we can't chalk this up to faulty translation. Further, the Syriac Orthodox read the New Testament in Aramaic/Syriac, and they are in full agreement with the Copts, and I would say, us EO, in upholding St. Cyril's teaching and objections on the matter.

Quote

The COE believes the humanity of the Messiah was sacrificed. Not his divinity or do you believe the entire trinity died???

We believe that God purchased the Church with His Own Blood. Acts 20:28.

The COE does not believe God at any one instance in time changed his divinity, much less that it fused with the nature of a human being into some sort of frankenstein thing neither human nor God, but a man-God in the Greek pagan tradition (Eutychianism).

Both God and Man in One Christ, with co-mingling, confusion, admixture or seperation.

Quote

The COE is the last Church to retain the New Testament in Aramaic

Actually, no. The COE uses Syriac, which the Syriac Orthodox Church also uses. I've been to Ma'lula, where the Orthodox there still speak Aramaic (not Syriac). And to give credit where credit is do, there are also, for instance, some Maronite towns where Aramaic is still used, and the Maronites as a whole still use it alongside Arabic.

Quote

which is the language of the Messiah,

But the language of the NT is Greek.

Quote

and it will not change any of its terminology which is all New Testament based to fit the opinions of man (whosoever present another Gospel, let him be khrim....) The Aramaic NT says Qnome not persons.

Where does the Aramaic (or the Syriac) NT say Qnome?

Quote

Persons and qnome are not synonyms, there really is no direct translation. Hypostases is the best translation I can think of Qnome.

I'll reserve comment here.

Quote

Last, if Copts are not monophysite they would agree to Chalcedon and stop saying Assyrians arent Christians (dont care what Cyril has to say either).

The Orthodox care quite a lot. And the Copts aren't Monophysite.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The Nestorians are seen a sort of 'proto-Protestants' by many as many of the things Protestants hate Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy for are lacking with the Nestorians

The Assyrian Church of the East to which George Lamsa belonged is not Nestorian in its Christology, that is a strawmen often made against them, and Lamsa himself. However, I would be open to contrary evidence.

In discussion with an Assembly of God minister about just this subject during the first week of July, I made the suggestion that learning Western Syriac and reading the Peshitto would be more reliable (note, not the Nestorian Peshitta.)

with no car, and I'll tell you, living in a canvas Yurt a mile from your nearest neighbor and 5 miles from the General Store, is no cup of tea. I chopped my wood every morning for my wood stove, even in the snow, went potty in an outhouse, and my water came from the creek next to the Yurt. I will be the first to admit that it was some of the best time in my life (while I was single) , but also a very hard way to live. I would not have wanted to do it for the rest of my life, since becoming a monk was distracted by my wife, and kids were becoming the new topic. I could not have put my family through it. Maybe you could think for a minute, about trying out some of that lifestyle in the States before running into a much harder scenario. I have known people who did what you propose and fell to all sorts of dangers and distractions.

I felt the same way as you when I was newly converting from Rasta, and may have some insights into what you are seeking which the others do not. If you wish to PM me, we can talk.

You must read the New Testament in Aramaic to understand fully its positions.

Did not the Disciples who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost speak in many different tongues? Was not the New Testament written by those so enlightened at Pentecost and compiled by the Church that was born of this Pentecost event? How, then, can you so limit the revelation of God to just one language, especially when it can be shown that this one language you tout wasn't even the majority language of the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles?

The COE views the Father, Son, and Ruach as qnome of the same kyana, rather than as hypostases sharing the same homoousious. It is much more intuitive than the Greek. It is ancient semitic based terminology used by the Messiah. What's good for the Messiah, Abraham, and the Prophets is good for me.

Second, I dont believe the New Testament was written in Greek despite all Western "scholarly" claims to the contrary (like Bruce Metzger knows more than the Patriarch of Babylon on the origin of these holy texts. Sure...) The Chaldean Catholic Church supposedly even had an autograph written by Mar Mari and Addai with them showing that the original was Aramaic. Go here: http://www.peshitta.org/ to read In Estrangelo (Eastern Syriac) the Peshitta. Further, we know Papias said that because of persecution most of the originals were lost in the Western world as people "translated best they could". This is too profound a topic and should be reserved for another time though. Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.

Third, you mentioned Acts 20:28. Ancient COE manuscripts expressly show that unscrupulous Monophysite scribes altered Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 from the original readings right after the Nestorius controversy. Here is the original reading of Acts 20:28 (see links, one is to the Khabouris Codex):

the MESSIAH purchased the Church with his own blood. God does not have blood (though he owns all the blood in the world and accepted the blood of his precious son as a most holy Qurbana, ie: sin offering of the highest order), it is blasphemy to suggest that an invisible spirit fused with a human nature to produce blood and that the creator "died" ceased to exist and left the universe in disrepair. This simply cannot happen. It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.

There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered. Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right. The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do. So its manuscript tradition is more reliable than that of the Syriac Orthodox Church which was influenced by the Byzantine sphere and "robber synods" like that of Ephesus.

Anyways, I just want to say that the COE is actually very similar to the Orthodox Church but uses different terminology overall. The two pivotal differences I already gave you - Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28 have different readings in Eastern Syriac, further the COE does not accept the canonicity of the last five NT books and the pericope adultera (story of the adultress in the Gospel of John). This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

it is blasphemy to suggest that an invisible spirit fused with a human nature to produce blood and that the creator "died" ceased to exist and left the universe in disrepair. This simply cannot happen.

You need to realize that neither the Eastern Orthodox (EO) nor the Oriental Orthodox (OO), including the Coptic Church believe anything like that. When we say that the Incarnate Word of God suffered in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh (See St. Cyril's 12th anathema and the EO's Fifth Council,) we are expressing the reality of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation. We don't believe that God the Word ever ceased to exist.

You don't seem to understand our beliefs. Perhaps it is good that you are here, then, so that we can understand each other better.

Quote

It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.

Are you saying that Christ had to rely on the Holy Spirit to be raised from the dead; that He did not have the power Himself to do so? How would that make Christ's Resurrection different from that of Lazarus?

Second, I dont believe the New Testament was written in Greek despite all Western "scholarly" claims to the contrary (like Bruce Metzger knows more than the Patriarch of Babylon on the origin of these holy texts. Sure...)

It more likely that the Epistles were written in Greek. St. Paul's letters were written mainly to the Gentile Churches who spoke Greek. Why would Paul write to them in Aramaic? At Pentecost, the Apostles were given the gift of toungues in order to preach the Gospel to all nations in their own language. The Church decided that the Gentiles did not have to become Jewish before they could be Christian so I don't think that they would have to learn Aramaic to read the letters St. Paul wrote. St. Luke the Evangelist was a Greek as well so I don't see why he would write his Gospel in Aramaic. It seems unlikely that the Epistles were written in Aramaic.

The COE views the Father, Son, and Ruach as qnome of the same kyana, rather than as hypostases sharing the same homoousious. It is much more intuitive than the Greek. It is ancient semitic based terminology used by the Messiah. What's good for the Messiah, Abraham, and the Prophets is good for me.

But what about the Apostles? Do you ignore the fact that the Messiah commissioned them to preach His Gospel to all the nations (Matthew 28:18-20)? Do you ignore the fact that, after the Holy Spirit descended upon them in accordance with the Messiah's promise in John 14:25-26, the Apostles did preach and the people who embraced their faith devoted themselves to their teaching (Acts 2:42)?

Second, I dont believe the New Testament was written in Greek despite all Western "scholarly" claims to the contrary (like Bruce Metzger knows more than the Patriarch of Babylon on the origin of these holy texts. Sure...)

What makes the Patriarch of Babylon a more trustworthy authority than Bruce Metzger on this question?

The Chaldean Catholic Church supposedly even had an autograph written by Mar Mari and Addai with them showing that the original was Aramaic. Go here: http://www.peshitta.org/ to read In Estrangelo (Eastern Syriac) the Peshitta.

What good does that do me? I can't read Aramaic.

What good would an Aramaic New Testament have accomplished with an audience that largely spoke and read Greek?

This is too profound a topic and should be reserved for another time though. Please go to the website I listed if interested since it only debates Peshitta primacy.

Third, you mentioned Acts 20:28. Ancient COE manuscripts expressly show that unscrupulous Monophysite scribes altered Acts 20:28 and Hebrews 2:9 from the original readings right after the Nestorius controversy.

So where are these "ancient manuscripts"? Can you point us to them so we can read them for ourselves and not blindly take your word on what they say?

the MESSIAH purchased the Church with his own blood. God does not have blood (though he owns all the blood in the world and accepted the blood of his precious son as a most holy Qurbana, ie: sin offering of the highest order), it is blasphemy to suggest that an invisible spirit fused with a human nature to produce blood and that the creator "died" ceased to exist and left the universe in disrepair.

This simply cannot happen. It is Orthodox to believe that the Messiah died and was ressurected by the holy Spirit indwelling within him.

There is a Western Peshitta used by the Syriac Orthodox Church and the EASTERN version which was untampered. Who is right? I say the Eastern tradition not the Western is right. The COE grew up in the Persian empire where nobody could tell it what to do. So its manuscript tradition is more reliable than that of the Syriac Orthodox Church which was influenced by the Byzantine sphere and "robber synods" like that of Ephesus.

Anyways, I just want to say that the COE is actually very similar to the Orthodox Church but uses different terminology overall. The two pivotal differences I already gave you - Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28 have different readings in Eastern Syriac, further the COE does not accept the canonicity of the last five NT books and the pericope adultera (story of the adultress in the Gospel of John). This diagram will help you out in understanding COE Christology:

go to fragment 6 of this translation of what is left of his Exposition of the Oracles of our Lord and you will see that he believed the Gospels were originally written in "Hebrew" and people did the best they could to translate. It was very common for the Western Fathers not fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic to confuse the two languages. Eusebius did this several times. We also know Hegesippus was acquainted with the Syriac text of the Peshitta. Anyways, Aramaic primacy/Peshitta primacy is a heavy subject and it is best if you go to peshitta.org to read by yourselves on this since it is very draining for a person not fully qualified to teach on these texts (such as myself) to be the sole authority you guys can access on their history. Please speak to the site mantainer, the Deacon Paul Younan, read his interlinear.

Somebody asked why so few Peshitta translations. There are actually several translations, but it is the opinion of the COE that God does not put his blessing on translating the text since every time this happens something goes wrong (witness Lamsa, monophysites altering scripture, judaizing movements, Roman Catholics altering readings, etc.) So the COE never authorizes any translation, you must learn syriac.

Also why is the Patriarch of Babylon (Seleukia-Ctesiphon) more reliable than Bruce Metzger? Well you guys already know the answer- because of laying on of hands ,apostolic succession, because he has the proper chain of transmission of these sacred doctrines while protestants weren't there 2000 years ago hearing St.Peter talk in Babylon, nor did Bruce Metzger receive the priesthood from the 2 disciples Addai and Mar Mari. These offices are given by God himself and stipulate that the COE is an apostolic church with apostolic founders while Metzger talks of himself.

go to fragment 6 of this translation of what is left of his Exposition of the Oracles of our Lord and you will see that he believed the Gospels were originally written in "Hebrew" and people did the best they could to translate.

CORRECTION: According to the source you just referenced, Papias said this only of the Gospel of Matthew.

"Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." (from Fragment 6)

It was very common for the Western Fathers not fluent in Hebrew or Aramaic to confuse the two languages. Eusebius did this several times. We also know Hegesippus was acquainted with the Syriac text of the Peshitta. Anyways, Aramaic primacy/Peshitta primacy is a heavy subject and it is best if you go to peshitta.org to read by yourselves on this since it is very draining for a person not fully qualified to teach on these texts (such as myself) to be the sole authority you guys can access on their history. Please speak to the site mantainer, the Deacon Paul Younan, read his interlinear.

Somebody asked why so few Peshitta translations. There are actually several translations, but it is the opinion of the COE that God does not put his blessing on translating the text since every time this happens something goes wrong (witness Lamsa, monophysites altering scripture, judaizing movements, Roman Catholics altering readings, etc.) So the COE never authorizes any translation, you must learn syriac.

Also why is the Patriarch of Babylon (Seleukia-Ctesiphon) more reliable than Bruce Metzger? Well you guys already know the answer- because of laying on of hands ,apostolic succession, because he has the proper chain of transmission of these sacred doctrines while protestants weren't there 2000 years ago hearing St.Peter talk in Babylon, nor did Bruce Metzger receive the priesthood from the 2 disciples Addai and Mar Mari. These offices are given by God himself and stipulate that the COE is an apostolic church with apostolic founders while Metzger talks of himself.

But you don't trust the Holy Spirit, who gave the gift of foreign tongues to the Apostles, to properly oversee the translation of sacred texts so those untrained in Syriac can understand them?

Well guys, its just the opinion of the COE that these texts are in danger of becoming the works of men, thus it is better to "targum" the text in peoples language, but not cannot allow translations to ever substitute the original (giving authorization to a translation would be part of that process). I believe there's nothing wrong in reading the Gospel in your own tongue and that as long as a translation is not deliberately deceptive like that of a JW or a Mormon its ok, but there's that danger of the text becoming "standardized" into the mold some group wants it to be in. There are nuances in the Aramaic which cannot be translated to full fidelity in any language. Take words like "Miltha" or "Qnome"...better leave untranslated. Think about the number of revisions the King James bible has undergone and you will see that no translation can ever live up to the original.

Take words like "Miltha" or "Qnome"...better leave untranslated. Think about the number of revisions the King James bible has undergone and you will see that no translation can ever live up to the original.

I think I understand what you mean. "Miltha" is "Logos" in Greek which is a pretty complex word which has been translated as "Word" in most Bibles. I don't like "Word" since "Logos" is much more complex as I'm sure "Miltha" is a as well. The New Testament I have which is printed by a Greek monastery decided not to translate it which I think is the best idea. I think with "Word" many Protestants think that it is talking about the Scripture and that the Scripture is in some way divine or something. I can see your point how a lot can be mistranslated and taken out of context.

Though, our views differ since I believe that the New Testament was originally Greek with the exception of St. Matthews Gospel which was clearly written to Jewish readers whom he pointed out was the Messiah that the Prophets wrote about and that Christ fulfilled the Law and Prophets. It seems though that the rest was written in Greek.

"Miltha" is "Logos" in Greek which is a pretty complex word which has been translated as "Word" in most Bibles. I don't like "Word" since "Logos" is much more complex as I'm sure "Miltha" is a as well.

Exactly. Don't you get annoyed when you see Oral Boyle or Pat Robertson going "The wooordddd did so forth and so forth" not even knowing how this refers to a complex New Testament concept which has roots going all the way to thousands of years ago, all the way back to important ancient Jewish mystical doctrines which require years of study to properly comprehend? So sometimes it is better to leave the text untranslated. I even have a friend who (from a Jewish background) converted to the COE many years ago and who says that the one thing he "can't forgive" is how people translated the text improperly, sometimes deliberately (Monophysites deliberately altered the text, the COE has extensive proof they did this, particularly in Hebrews 2:9 and Acts 20:28). Even Codex Vaticanus has a note on the margins with one of the scribes writing "you fool, why can't you leave the original reading alone". I'm not joking, its here: